Doctoral Education in the UK: Trends and Challenges
Review Paper prepared for:
Forces and Forms of Change in Doctoral Education Internationally Conference.
CIRGE,
University of Washington,
September 2005.
Howard Green
Staffordshire University
Chair: UK Council for Graduate Education
Contact details:
Tel: 0044(0)1782 294664
Email: h.green@staffs.ac.uk
Acknowledgement:
I would like to acknowledge the contribution of Professor Stuart Powell in
commenting on this review and permitting me to use material freely from Doctoral
Studies in Contemporary Higher Education, published by The Open University Press
in July 2005.
Contents
1.
Introduction
2.
Forces of Change
3.
Some important consequences
4
Doctoral Awards
5.
The purpose of the Doctorate
6.
Who can deliver Doctoral Awards?
7
Trends in Doctoral Education
8.
Pressures to complete
9.
Organisation and Supervision
10.
Examining
11.
Funding
12.
Student Issues
13.
Abbreviations
14
References
1
Introduction
In 1996 the UK Council for Graduate Education (UKCGE) noted that ‘doctoral
education was frequently regarded as a cottage industry, a prestigious yet somehow
fringe activity in higher education’ (UKCGE, 1996). This paper outlines the key
changes that have taken place since that time, identifying some of the major drivers
for change and finally highlighting some current issues, as yet unresolved. In so doing
it suggests that the movement from a cottage industry to one that provides excellence
in an increasingly mass production environment continues to challenge universities
and their regulators in the UK and that there remains much to be done.
It is recognised that since devolved responsibilities for Higher Education were given
to Scotland and to a lesser extent Wales, there have been divergences in the way in
which higher education has developed, in particular with regard to funding. Specific
attention is not given to these differences; they are noted only for comparative
purposes where appropriate. It is acknowledged that generalisation about doctoral
education in the UK is increasingly difficult because of these developments.
2
Forces of change
2.1
Response to pressures
The doctorate has changed, and continues to change, in response to the many
pressures that come in all directions and which are often idiosyncratic and
unstructured. This section examines some of these influences and points to the kinds
of responses that are observable in the overall system. These will be developed
subsequently. Overall these influences are often ill coordinated and are leading to a
rather incremental and disjointed approach to change. What follows is itself rather
random; the influences are neither necessarily in order of importance or in any
chronological sequence.
2.2
Relevance to the national economy
The importance of research and the PhD to the sustainability of the national economy
is of great significance to governments that fund universities and students to
undertake doctoral study. Discussion of the role of doctoral study and its value to
society is not new. In the late 1960s a working group of the Committee for Manpower
Resources for Science and Technology observed:
This Committee's recommendations are that the scale of support for postgraduate
training leading to academic research should be reviewed, that research grant
support involving manpower should in general rise in step with the growth of
university staff in the three fields, that industry and the schools should take all
possible steps to attract graduates of high quality; that further attention should be
given to meeting demand in industry and the schools, by redeployment, and the
possibility should be examined of developing more long-term quantitative assessments
of the balance of distribution of qualified manpower, in order to assist long term
plans for collaborative response of education and industry [Committee on Manpower
Resources for Science and Technology, 1996]
‘However education should take the initiative e.g. examining the PhD and trying to
orientate it towards the requirements of industry; while industry should vigorously
recruit people qualified in science, engineering and technology’ [Committee on
Manpower Resources for Science and Technology, 1968]
In the early 1990s the desire to make research and the doctorate in particular more
relevant to the needs of the national economy intensified. Several national stakeholders began to question the nature and purpose of the PhD. Pressures for change
were driven by three key concerns: (i) an apparent loss of international standing of the
British PhD, (ii) lack of personal and professional skills and (iii) disappointing ‘time
to completion’ and completion rates.
The 1993 White Paper, Realising our Potential formalised the debate about research
and research training arguing that ‘the Government welcomes the growth in
postgraduate courses. It is concerned, however, that the traditional PhD does not
always match up to the needs of a career outside research in academia or an
industrial research laboratory’ (DTI, 1993, pp. 57).
The White Paper highlighted the perceived nature of the concerns about the PhD
when it stated that ‘a period spent in PhD training represents a substantial investment
of public funds and it is important to ensure that it represents good value for money
for the taxpayer as well as the individual concerned’ (DTI, 1993, pp.57).
It went on to argue that there is a role for preparatory matters in research training
when it suggested that ‘for most students who have undertaken a first degree, the
Master's qualification will provide an opportunity to acquire extra knowledge and
skills, either in preparation for a period of research training leading to a PhD or for
employment’ (DTI, 1993, pp. 61).
Through the offices of the Office of Science and Technology (OST), Government
steered a policy towards much more fundamental training in research methods and
generic skills which led to a fundamental shift in the way in which PhDs are
perceived and delivered. Specific details of these are discussed below. In 1994 the
OST published a paper building on the proposals of the White Paper. It argued that
those trained to postgraduate level should have skills better matched to the needs of
potential employers, including those outside the academic world and that this should
include elements of non-science specific training including at the very least
communication skills and human, material and financial resource management (OST,
1994).
It outlined a recommended structure for a new one-year Research Masters (MRes)
degree, which would include both taught and research components. This degree was
intended as a foundation either for a doctorate or for a research career in industry or
the public sector.
The OST proposed:

a significant research component (60% of the 42-week postgraduate year);


2.3
the provision of a grounding in research techniques relevant to a range of
disciplines as well as the development of specialist knowledge;
the inclusion of modules intended to broaden the students' experience and to equip
them with transferable skills in management, communication, commercial
understanding, the exploitation of research, and team working.
The Harris Review
The key driver of change in the late 1990s came from Harris’s review of postgraduate
education in the mid 1990’s. Harris covered both Postgraduate Taught (PGT) and
Postgraduate Research (PGR). The impetus for this review came from concerns about
quality, concerns about growing numbers and perhaps fundamentally, concerns about
the cost of provision, cross subsidy and value for money. The Review’s analysis and
conclusions on PGR began a chain reaction that is reflected in the majority of what
we currently observe. Key elements included:




2.4
The development of a code of practice.
Selective funding of universities delivering research degrees according to key
attributes.
Far greater attention to the supervisory process.
The inclusion of research training in the research degree programme.
Influence of the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)
The UK doctorate has prided itself on being a quality product for many years and
indeed the work of the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) has been fundamental in
enhancing the quality of the Doctorate experience. Much of the drive for quality
improvement has come via the QAA and its Code of Practice (The Code for
Postgraduate Research Programmes was recently revised and is now a comprehensive
framework document for quality practice). Whilst there is little other than anecdotal
evidence of poor quality in the Doctoral experience, nevertheless there is a view that
to maintain international competitiveness, quality must be a constant driver.
Comparison between the two editions of the Code in the context of research training
and employability highlights the growing emphasis on this aspect of doctoral work.
However, the Code highlights one of the key problems associated with the increasing
emphasis on training – that of explicitly giving credit to the work undertaken when it
says ‘Institutions may also wish to implement some form of recognition of the
acquisition of transferable skills in parallel with, or as part of, the academic
assessment of the student's progress’ (QAA, 2004 pp. 22).
2.5
Training and industry linked initiatives
Those trained to postgraduate level should have skills better matched to the needs of
potential employers, including those outside the academic world and at that this
should include elements of non-science specific training including at the very least
communication skills and human, material and financial resource management (OST,
1994)
Employability seems to be a word used increasingly across higher education in the
UK and is certainly applicable to the doctoral sector. Although demands for more
employable research students dates back more than two decades, the 1993 White
Paper highlighted its significance. It observed that many PhDs did not have the
appropriate skills to work in industry (more the science base) and needed to have
enhanced generic skills.
2.6 Value for money
Value for money represents a significant driver for change in the UK as Governments
increasingly recognise the costs of training doctoral students (e.g. JM Consulting
2005). Through the respective funding councils Government continues to press for
more effective doctoral training, better completion rates and higher quality students
engaging in doctoral work. Several White Papers from the seminal Realising our
Potential to the most recent Investing in Innovation have emphasised this
requirement. Often expressed in terms other than value for money or return on
investment, such as high completion rates, the underlying issue is value for money.
2.7 Overseas sponsors
International forces are a key element of change in the doctorate particularly as a
significant number of doctoral students, particularly in the science are classed as
overseas as seen below. The demands of overseas sponsors have been particularly
important in shaping the awards themselves and the development of the so-called
‘New Route’ PhD can be interpreted as a direct response to international demands.
This award, which is normally a four-year award, includes more taught elements than
in the traditional PhD.
It is perhaps noteworthy that the demands of Europe are less significant. Whilst the
UK is a signatory of the Bologna Accord it pays little more than lip service to its
demands of 3+2+3. In part this is because the only significant element which is not
directly compliant with the Accord is the Masters element (the UK having one year
postgraduate masters as apposed to the European 2 years). As far as the doctorate is
concerned, the UK three-year model with apparently excellent completion rates is
seen as a model of excellence.
2.8
Workforce planning
It is perhaps noteworthy that absent from the drivers of change is any significant
concern for the labour market and workforce planning. Whilst there has been a slow
realisation than only a minority of doctorates will obtain academic appointment, there
has been little discussion, other than by the British Academy, that academic
placement is important. In the context of academic employers little is said of the
demand for doctorates and indeed there remains an open market with Universities
themselves dictating the level of provision. From time to time there have been
questions raised by various disciplines and research council about the numbers
coming forward for doctoral study – but these have been more in terms of narrow
sectoral interests such as the problems of recruiting economists or engineers, rather
than systematic analysis of need at a national level.
3
Some important consequences
3.1 Code of Practice
The review began with the quote from the UKCGE report that discussed the cottage
industry nature of the doctoral process. This has certainly changed as a result of the
more systematic regulatory environment that has been provided by the QAA. The
new, revised, Code of Practice (QAA, 2004), discussed subsequently will further
enhance the quality of doctoral education. The key to success of the Code will of
course be in its implementation and the manner in which audit teams interpret and
monitor at institutional level. It will be vital that the selection and training of auditors
reflects the need to enhance further the quality of doctoral provision.
Of particular interest will be the way in which universities respond to the demands of
the Code. As noted elsewhere (Green and Powell, 2004) the increased complexity of
the Code may create problems for many of those universities that have relatively
small numbers of research students – probably over 50% of the total number of
universities – and cause them to reconsider the financial viability of delivering
doctorates at all.
Section 1: Postgraduate Research Programmes was the first section of the Code to be
published (January 1999). Given the relatively small population of postgraduate
research students it is noteworthy that it was ‘first’ in this way. It might be ask
whether this reflected a concern by the QAA regarding the need to improve the
quality assurance of PGR. It is also notable that while the rest of the Code covers all
aspects of taught provision, including postgraduate taught provision, it was felt
necessary and appropriate to have a separate Code for all aspects of PGR.
The revised Code launched is September 2004 is a longer, more thorough, document
that, prepared with the help of representatives from the sector, responds to the views
of the Better Regulation Review Group (BRRG). The guidance sections of the first
edition of the Code are replaced by explanatory text indicating why the individual
precepts have been included. The QAA emphasises that the Code should not be
regarded as a document requiring compliance by institutions, but rather as one
providing a reference to widely agreed approaches to good practice in the relevant
areas.
Notwithstanding the reference to the BRRG the Code remains heavily prescribed and
for some necessarily so. The UKCGE response to the draft noted that:
‘the current draft is considerably more prescriptive, longer and more complex than
the previous version with a total of 30 precepts as opposed to 25 in the previous
version. The general tone of the draft is also more imperative with should being
replaced by will, suggesting that the precepts are standards for compliance rather
than pointers to good practice’. (UKCGE, Website: http://www.ukcge.ac.uk).
Underlying this discussion is a belief that the delivery of postgraduate research
programmes requires special measures to ensure that it delivers the Government
agenda. The discussion also highlights the sensitivities of academics towards the
research degree process and that of senior mangers towards regulation. In many cases
both groups are blind to the difficulties that research students experience during their
research studies and the need for a rigorous approach to the delivery of research
awards.
3.2
Institutional Audit
The Institutional Audit is a second element of the QAA’s work that can influence the
doctoral process in institutions. The process of institutional audit was introduced in
2002/3 and developed out of the continuation audit process. In theory and as far as
doctoral work is concerned, both processes examine how institutions are responding
to the Code of Practice. However there is very little to suggest that the audits
undertaken so far have paid serious attention to the research degree process. (See for
example Metcalfe et al, 2003, Annex F QAA Audit reports). If continuation
institutional audit is to have an impact on the improvement of doctoral research
processes, considerably more time and effort will be required during audit by auditors
with significant experience of the research degree process and the revised code of
practice.
4.
Doctoral Awards
4.1
Range of Awards
The doctoral award as employed within the UK Higher Education sector is varied in
its manifestations. Indeed this diversity and an understanding of diverse structures and
their purpose represent major current concerns for doctoral education in the UK.
Students can work towards doctoral awards with different nomenclatures – involving
different levels of entry qualification, modes and kinds of study. The broad categories
of doctoral study in the UK can be summarized as follows:







PhD;
Taught Doctorate;
Doctor of Medicine;
Higher Doctorates;
PhD by Published Work;
Professional Doctorate;
Practice-Based Doctorate.
It is arguable that with the exception of the Doctor of Medicine and the Higher
Doctorate, this categorization is often more apparent than real and that the within
category variance is greater than that between categories across institutions, all of
which have their own regulations and requirements.
4.2
Late 20th Century and early 21st Century developments in the Doctorate
The pressure to move beyond the situation described above towards the kind of
diversity that now exists came initially from the increasing intellectual demands of
industrial and commercial contexts. As the complexity of the workplace increased and
the need for highly qualified postgraduates developed so the demand grew for more
doctoral level work. However, the raison d’etre of the PhD came under challenge. It
was no longer the case that the Doctorate acted as a route into a career in academia;
instead it became a qualification for work in diverse intellectual settings. The
criticism was levelled that the PhD was too narrowly ‘academic’ and that the kinds of
knowledge and skills displayed by successful PhD candidates were not readily usable
in the workplace contexts they sought to enter. Pressure came from the areas such as
engineering and chemistry for doctoral level study that was more applied and more
relevant to the work expected of successful candidates as they entered the appropriate
professions. These criticisms and pressures set the scene for the broadening of
doctoral study from the PhD alone to the range of doctoral studies described in later
chapters of this book.
5.
The purpose of the doctorate
5.1
Notions of purpose
Notions of purpose vary from: (i) training for an academic career, (ii) training for a
research career in academia, (iii) training for research in the economy at large, (iv)
curiosity-driven work in its own right and for its own sake and (v) high level training
within a professional context
5.2
The Doctorate and the academic profession
The notion of the Doctorate as an apprenticeship for academia is predicated on two
assumptions. First, that all academics need a Doctorate in order to practice their
profession and second, that the Doctorate provides the appropriate level of
experiential learning to equip the individuals for academic life.
In assessing the appropriateness of the Doctorate for those wishing to enter academia,
it may be useful to examine roles that academics are required to fulfil. Not necessarily
in order of importance, these may be identified as: research, teaching and ‘other’
(where ‘other’ will include administration, management, consultancy, exploitation of
IPR, counselling etc). The proportion of each of these activities will vary across
institutions and through the career of any individual academic. Whilst the Research
Assessment Exercises (RAEs) have focussed attention on the research element of the
portfolio of activities, significant numbers of staff undertake little or no formal RAE
funded research. Even ‘Russell Group’ ( a grouping of prestigious universities)
institutions such as Bristol University have over 40% of staff without Doctorates.
5.3
The Doctorate as an apprenticeship for industry
Significant numbers of successful doctoral candidates follow careers in industry and
the professions in a range of capacities. The demands may relate specifically to
research. Although the UK’s performance in research and development is not at the
top of the international league, UK industry still takes large numbers of doctorates
into research posts. The pharmaceutical and petrochemical industries are good
examples. Here the benefits of the Doctorate may relate to specific technical
knowledge or laboratory competences. It was from these types of employers however
that concerns about Doctorate capability arose in the 1990’s. Such concerns have lead
to greater emphasis on a broad range of skills in addition to those associated with
research itself. In short, some employers were complaining that successful doctoral
candidates knew ‘an awful lot about an awful little’ and were lacking in skills of, for
example, communication and team working. These concerns were a key element in
the development of the MRes (OST 1994) and the funding initially of the OST
Graduate Schools and subsequently the development of the UK Grad Programme.
5.4
The Doctorate and the professions
Data is not available within the UK on the number of employees in the professions
with doctorates and hence it is not possible to identify clearly the importance of the
Doctorate to those professions. It is possible however to make certain inferences from
the data on the number of doctorates awarded in a number of subjects that are
predominantly professional in nature as illustrated in Table 1. In terms of the number
of awards made, the Doctorate appears to be of limited importance to many of the
professionally related disciplines. For many, the postgraduate diploma or masters is
the passport to the profession. This does perhaps highlight the need for innovation
and the importance of the professional doctorate.
Table 1: Number of Awards awarded in 2002/2003
Subject
Medicine and dentistry
Subject allied to medicine
Biological sciences
Veterinary science
Agriculture and related subjects
Physical sciences
Mathematical Sciences
Computer science
Engineering and technology
Architecture, building and planning
Social studies
Law
Business and administrative studies
Mass communications and
documentation
languages
Historical and philosophical studies
Creative arts and design
Education
Combined
Source: HESA 2004
Doctorates
1360
885
2375
70
230
2180
370
375
2020
175
1245
255
555
First degrees
6175
23665
23725
560
2150
12480
5100
18240
19455
6555
25315
11745
40310
All awards
9875
63145
32730
760
4560
19225
6895
33560
33420
12470
47285
24515
85345
65
900
855
310
620
25
7415
20025
13285
26465
9730
9990
11870
28305
19355
36295
53760
34415
6.
Who can deliver doctoral awards?
6.1
University status and new approaches to funding
The issue of who can deliver research degree programmes has recently come under
review from two perspectives, first the decisions about university status and the
impact of the new approaches to funding. They appear to have divergent effects.
As a general rule all universities are licensed to have doctoral programmes within
their award portfolio as of right. Institutions of higher education, which are not
universities – such as the university colleges or specialist institutions - are able to run
doctoral programmes, but in association with a university which acts as the awarding
body. In this case the final award is from the awarding university, not that delivering
the programme. Recently there has been a change in the requirements to achieve
university status and hence gives them the authority to award doctorates. In practice
most of the University colleges will eventually gain University status and hence
become eligible to award doctorates.
6.2
Concentration of doctoral education
Government has been eager to encourage the concentration of doctoral education in a
smaller number of institutions. This policy of concentration was raised in the Higher
Education White paper (The Future of Higher Education, DFES 2003). The paper
compared the current picture to that of the US in which it was suggested doctoral
programmes were highly concentrated.
It concludes:
‘we will ask HEFCE to set high minimum standards for the training of PhD students
which must be met before higher education institutions can draw down funding for
PhD places, though they could still fund PhD places from their own resources if they
wished to do so. This may lead to larger graduate schools in fewer HEIs, as some
institutions decide not to offer PhD places, and others are in a position to play to
their strengths in PhD training by expanding their postgraduate provision. In time,
this might play into a model where postgraduate degree awarding powers are
restricted to successful research consortia. ( Para 2.26)
Much of the comment about the delivery of doctoral programmes had its origins in the
Roberts Review of science engineering and technology where it may be the case that
the delivery of doctorates is best undertaken in large groups where economies of scale
can achieve in the provision of expensive equipment and the scientific laboratories. It
does appear less clear in the case of Social Science, the Arts and Humanities where
such economies are less obvious.
The relationship between the research degree awarding powers and University status
is of particular interest as it develops the argument in the White Paper that institutions
can retain their title university – without research degree awarding powers. The
argument is complex and goes to the very heart of University – in the UK at least,
where such powers have always been the distinguishing feature between the true
University and those institutions – the University Colleges and former Polytechnics,
masquerading as such. It is noteworthy that pre 1992 when the Council for National
Academic Awards was the guardian of standards for the Polytechnics, a significant
number of polytechnics were awarded research degree awarding powers by the
CNAA. Several however did not apply for such powers and were automatically
awarded them in the 1992 changes.
Up to the 2004 the criteria for University title included the following:




At least 300 FTE HE students in five of 11 stated subject categories.
At least 4,000 FTE HE students.
At least 3,000 FTE students on degree courses.
AND at least 60 current research degree registrations and more than 30
doctor of Philosophy conferments (no time period stated).
(DFES, 2004) site is www.dfes.gov.uk/dfee/hequ/degree_criteria.htm accessed
10.08.2004)
In July 2004, the Minister of State for Life Long Learning and Higher Education,
Alan Johnson, announced that Government had relaxed the research degree
requirement and award the title of University on the basis of taught degree awarding
powers (written Ministerial Statement, 16th July 2004). As a consequence many
institutions which had until that point been debated from even applying for that status
until they had achieved the required number of enrolments and conferments could
now do so. The announcement also opened the door for applications from corporate
organisations to apply for the title university. So far none appear to have done so.
The link between the University and the Doctorate was duly severed.
6.3
Delivery of PGR in relation to the Code of Practice
The second key element in the equation relates more to an ability to have programmes
in terms of the overall capacity to deliver, in relation to the QAA Code of Practice and
in the funding rather than in the constitutional right to so do. We saw in the
distribution numbers of doctorates awarded a concentration of awards in a small
minority of institutions. Implicit in the use of the Code of Practice is a culling of
institutions that have the capability to deliver doctoral programmes. This has largely
backfired, as there is little relationship with critical mass of doctoral students or the
research assessment rating or the ability to comply with the Code!
The key message concerning who delivers however related to funding – and who is
funded to deliver. Here there is a clear message coming from the funding agencies
that only in departments that are rated 4 and above in the Research Assessment
Exercise (RAE) will in future be funded for Doctoral programmes. However,
institutions will continue to offer doctoral programmes – even at a loss for reasons of
mission, status and profile enhancement.
7
Trends in Doctoral education
7.1
Numbers, age structure, disciplines
The growth in the postgraduate population has created a sector that is out of all
recognition to that of the 1960’s when the Robbins Report, the first major study of
Higher Education in the UK noted a population in 1961/62 of 19,400 full-time
and 6,300 part-time students. By 1994/95 at the time of the Harris report, there
were 128,300 full-time and 187,100 part-time postgraduate students. The relative
position of postgraduate student numbers similarly changed during this period. In
1979, 13% of the total student population were postgraduate (100,900
postgraduate in a total population of 787,000) yet in 1994/95 the comparable
figure was 21% (315,400 out of a population of 1,528,600). By the end of the
millennium, the total population of postgraduates was 151,330 full-time and
257,290 part-time (HESA, 2001).
Similarly, structural changes were observed in the mode of programmes with a
growth in the number of part-time students, and equalisation of the gender
balance and, more recently, a significant growth in the numbers of overseas
students. In 1992/93 there were 25,100 international postgraduate students in
HEIs in the UK, 8% from the EU, 92% from the rest of the world. By 1997/98
this figure had risen to 81,000, of which now 33% were from the EU and 67%
from the rest of the world, theoretically at least making a major impact on the
funding of programmes. The global market, and in particular the UK’s position in
that market, has been a key factor in the discussion of quality (Spagnold, 1994).
As far as doctoral awards are concerned, the importance of this growth is further
emphasised with 14,875 doctorates awarded by 129 HEIs in 2003. Table .2
illustrates the trend since the mid '90s.
Table 2: Total Number of Doctorates awarded by UK HEIs, 1996-2002
Year
Total
Annual Growth
(%)
1996
10,800
1997
11,860
1998
12,660
1999
13,140
2000
13,670
2001
14,115
2002
14,210
2003
14,875
Source: HESA 2004 Table 12
9.8
6.7
3.8
4.0
3.2
0.6
0.95
The distribution of the awards is highly skewed across universities as is clearly
seen in Table 3. Five universities, the Universities of Cambridge, Oxford,
Birmingham, Manchester and University College London, all located in England,
accounted for 25% of the total awards in 2000.
Table 3: The Distribution of Doctorates awarded by Institution (2000)
Quartile
Upper
Second
Third
Lower
Source: Millicope, 2001
Number of Universities
5
9
18
97
This concentration is further emphasised by the figures for the constituent nations
of the UK as in Table 4.
Table 4: National Distribution of Doctorates awarded 2002/3
England
Wales
Scotland
Northern Ireland
Total
Source: HESA, 2004 Table12
12,270
605
1,605
390
14,875
These figures do not of course take into account the number or size of the HEIs in
each of the nations nor the total number of students from each of the nations who
are being awarded doctorates because of trans-national movement, and hence
should be interpreted with some care. Nevertheless they do clearly demonstrate
the dominance of English universities in the UK doctoral education market.
The figures also conceal the variety of awards themselves. Whilst the PhD may
remain the most important of the doctoral awards, the last ten years has seen the
development of awards such as the Professional Doctorate, Practice Based
Doctorate, PhD by Published Work, New Route PhD and others. Interestingly,
there is no national data that allows differentiation of these new awards in total
numbers as HESA combines them all into the broad category, namely Doctorate.
Table 5 illustrates the importance today of the part-time mode in doctoral programmes
to all institutions. The data does conceal some students who originally started their
study full time who have subsequently changed mode at the end of their three year
grant and who are frequently referred to as ‘writing up’ In many cases there students
are the outcasts of research council funds.
Table 5: PGR Students Mode of Study 2002/03
Full time Part time
Old universities
49,600
44,370
Post 92universities/Colleges/Institutes
5,670
8,970
Total
55,270
53,340
Source: HESA, 2004, Table 9C
Total
93,970
14,640
108,610
Finally, Table 6 highlights the age distribution of UK first year students. Whilst the
young postgraduate age 21-24 is still the dominant group, the table shows the far
broader age distribution now characteristic of doctoral education, a distribution which
has major challenges for institutions in terms of student needs and demands.
Table 6: Age Structure: First year UK students 2002/3
Age
Postgraduate Research Student
FT
Under 21
50
21-24
6250
25-29
1755
30 plus
2115
TOTAL
10170
Source: HESA (2004) Table 1d & 1h
7.2
PT
5
600
925
3980
5510
Which Disciplines?
Table 1 above presented the data for the overall discipline distribution of doctorates
awarded. The dominance of the physical, biological and medical sciences and
engineering and technology is clearly evident. This disciplinary mix and the
associated traditions with these disciplines helps explain some of the debates about
the doctorate, including the need for generic skills development – ( is it assumed that
science graduates are less able to communicate?), completion rates and the notion of
the writing up period (is it assumed that actually writing up is not part of the research
degree process no longer based in the lab and hence there is no need for funding), the
notion of critical mass, (whilst the science doctorate may involve team working in
then lab, this does not apply to all disciplines) and so on. Too often, the science model
of the doctorate dominates thinking to the detriment of intellectual creativity and
change.
7.3
Overseas students
The Prime Minister’s initiative towards overseas students that focuses specifically on
longer-term relationship building has had a major influence on the position of the
British Higher Education and the British Doctorate in particular.
The demand for doctoral research programmes has risen considerable over the past
ten years illustrating the attractive nature of the British PhD although there is some
evidence that this has now level off.
Although much of the growth in overseas student demand has been funded by private
sources, estimated to represent 60%, the British Council report (British Council,
2004) on observed that 40% of the 39,000 postgraduate research students were
funded, in part or in full, from UK sources including institutional scholarships and fee
waivers. The remaining 15% are funded through home government or employer
scholarships.
Figure 1: First year doctoral research students by domicile and mode, 1995-96 to
2001-02
10,000
FT UK
PT UK
FT OS
PT OS
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1995-96
1996-97
1997-98
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
Academic year
Source: Sastry (2004)
There are several reasons for this rate of change that relate to nature of the award and
the doctoral process itself. From the pre-Harris days of the early 1990s there has been
a significant change in the way in which the doctorate is delivered and quality assured
as noted above. The QAA’s Code of Practice for Postgraduate Research Awards, and
the associated institutional audit of process is a major factor in reassuring
international students and sponsors of the quality of the doctorate.
The language of delivery is also significant particularly in the sciences where in
English is now the common international language of the scientific community.
Clearly the UK is not the only English language speaking country offering doctorates,
with Australia, Canada and the US competing for students. Whilst the US has the
greatest proportion of it international students studying at postgraduate level, the UK
is catching up and if, as the British Council forecasts, the postgraduate proportions for
international students in the UK increase significantly over time, it could overtake the
US to have the largest proportion of postgraduate students
Research undertaken in the English language is increasingly observed in non English
speaking countries. The Nordic countries, Germany and Holland undertake much of
their research in English. Additionally language is perhaps less important in the
Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities.
Expected time to completion is a further significant factor in attracting overseas
students to the UK. Recent evidence suggests that overseas students complete in
significantly shorter periods than in many other countries. This is particularly
important for overseas candidates who are paying significant tuition fees and charges
for accommodation.
Whilst it is suggested that there are significant advantages for international students to
study in the UK, the growth relative to the overall student body is increasingly being
treated with care.
Lack of joined up thinking can have a major effect on the student experience and
recruitment. The recent changes in the right to work have had some influence on the
financial situation of students from overseas. Regulations now allow overseas
students to take unrestricted paid work without additional visa requirements. There is
some anecdotal evidence however that this increased opportunity is directing students
away from their research work to the detriment of time to completion. This is
acerbated by the relative earning power of many students in the UK relative to their
home country. Some it seems use the additional earnings to support families back
home.
The recent increase in the change for renewal of student visas has also impacted on
the budget of many students and hence may impact on future recruitment.
The traditional view concerning the recruitment of overseas students has in part
revolved around income to institutions. As the number of students from the UK
willing and able to enter PGR programme, particularly in the Sciences and
Engineering and Technology has been problematic institutions have been keen to use
the overseas student as a lucrative source of income. Interestingly, recent work by the
Policy Research Institute (Sastry, 2005), building on the costing work of JM
Consulting has shown that over the life of a doctoral programme even overseas
students fail to cover the full costs of provision. Assuming the Sastry analysis to be
correct, then impact on institutions, and potential future recruitment behaviours will
depend on the significance of overseas students to the overall student mix. Table 7
illustrates the case for postgraduate students as a whole.
Table 7: Proportion of PG students in 10 Institutions
Overseas PG as per cent of
student body
London School of Economics
Cranfield
Essex
UMIST
Surrey
Oxford
Cambridge
Imperial
Institute of Education
UCL
England
Source: Sastry (2004)
All overseas student fees as per
cent of revenue
42.2
31.9
22.6
18.3
16.9
16.1
15.4
14.7
13.7
13.6
6.2
33.6
3.5
17.2
11.6
10.7
4.5
5.4
6.7
3.6
7.1
7.5
7.4
Where do they go?
It was noted earlier when discussing the purpose of the doctorate that there was a
variety of potential destinations for the doctorate. The first destination figures in
Table 8 illustrate the wide range of employment destinations – and the limited
importance of academic employment. It always seems to come as a surprise to the
academic community that this is the case.
Table 8: First destination of Research Council funded PhD graduates
1994
Total number of leavers
3166
Of which destination unknown
1057
Known destinations
2109
Of which:
%
Permanent academic appointment
5
Fixed term academic appointment
29
Further training (excluding
5
teaching)
School teaching or teacher training
3
Private sector, industry or
22
commerce
Government or other public sector
5
Other employment
4
Not employed
19
Overseas
10
Source: OST: Set Statistics Table 5 : 13
1996
3201
621
2580
1998
3735
938
2797
5
21
4
5
26
4
2000
3262
766
2496
%
5
25
4
2
33
2
29
2
24
5
2
18
9
6
4
15
10
5
4
18
13
A recent study by UKGRAD has re-emphasises this pattern.
8
Pressures to complete
Attention was focused on the length of doctoral training programmes, submission
rates and time to completion in the early 1980s with the events leading to the
publication of the Winfield report, (Winfield, 1987).
Table 8: Submission rates: 1976-1980 Starters
Year
Less than 4 years
ESRC DES/BA NERC
1976 11
15
1977 12
16
1978 15
1979 17
11
1980 18
Source: Winfield 1987
50
53
47
53
49
SERC
Less than 5 years
ESRC DES/BA NERC SERC
48
48
48
50
23
25
26
29
24
29
27
24
69
71
62
76
The table also highlights the variation between the different disciplinary groupings
represented by the Research Councils. Although not high by today’s standards, NERC
and SERC (now EPSRC) have much larger numbers of students completing within
four years.
The sanctions policy implemented before Winfield, but subsequently endorsed by his
report has been paralleled by a significant improvement in submission rates for
Research Council funded candidates. Whether this is a case of correlation or causality
may be disputed. Those working in the sector in the early 1980s will certainly recall
the increased attention given to submission by institutional and departmental
managers.
The pattern of submission today shows a very different picture as is highlighted in
Table 9.
Table 9: Submission rates: 1990-1997: % submission within 4 years
Start date
1990
1992
1994
BBSRC EPSRC ESRC
MRC NERC
PPARC AHRB
70
67
73
64
73
82
45
72
67
75
67
72
81
54
85
72
76
72
73
81
57
1996
86
1997
90
Source: OST/AHRB
71
75
76
81
75
75
78
88
84
85
70
71
Rates show considerable variability across institutions and disciplines. This is
reflected in the AHRB figures for example where the institutional range is from 100%
to 0% in terms of four-year submission. At the disciplinary level, Music, Art History
and the Classics continue to have relatively low four-year submission rates, whilst
much higher rates are observed for Law, Theology and Archaeology.
In 2004 HEFCE completed a study into doctoral submission and completion rates
across the sector (HEFCE, 2005). The study incorporated all degrees that are
examined predominantly through research, thus including the Professional Doctorates
and the so-called New Route PhD as well as the traditional MPhil/PhD. This work
presents a picture which was far from the optimistic one coming from the Research
Councils and AHRB. It emphasised the importance of funding, age, mode of study,
discipline and institution in any explanation of time to completion. The study revealed
that after seven years of study 71% of full-time students had completed (82% had
completed or were still active). In terms of part-time numbers, 34% students had
completed (62% had completed or were still active); 38% were no longer active and
within that group 4% (of the overall number) had left with an MPhil.
The main conclusions of the study may be summarised as follows.
 Completion rates for full-time students were more consistent than for part-timers.
 Completion rates were improved if funding was received from the Funding
Councils.
 Discipline areas were a factor in terms of completion rates for full-time students
(less so for part-timers).
 Research Council students tended to complete more quickly than non Research
Council students.








Overseas students tended to complete more quickly than home students.
Sex was a minor effect (women’s completion rates being lower than men’s).
Similarly age was a minor effect (older students were less likely to complete or
took longer to complete) (Early 20’s had a 80% completion rate; Early 30’s had a
60% completion rate)
There was a slight advantage in terms of completion time if the student’s previous
qualification was a first class degree.
Institution type (Pre- or Post-1992) had no discernable effect.
Discipline area had a significant impact with natural/ medical sciences completing
much quicker than humanities and social sciences (‘vocational subjects’ fell
between the two).
Critical mass of research group was not a factor, i.e. there was no indication that
students in small units were disadvantaged in comparison to students in larger
units.
The overall average times for completion of doctoral programmes were: 60%
completed in four years and 70% in five years.
This work will undoubtedly raise questions about performance across the sector and
give rise to questions within institutions about activity supported without funding.
9
Organisation and Supervision
9.1
Graduate Schools
One of the significant changes in the last ten years in the management and the
organisation of doctoral programmes has been the establishment of graduate schools.
It is particularly fortunate that there have been two surveys of Graduate Schools that
document both their initial development in the early years of the 1990s and their
maturation in 2004 (UKCGE, 1995; Woodward et al., 2004). In 1995 a significant
number of universities had established graduate schools: 33 universities and 1 college
of higher education had done so with a further 23 universities having definite plans to
establish such systems. Graduate schools were less common in the new (post-1992)
universities, one sixth of which had them and in the colleges of higher education one
tenth of which had them. By 2003/4 the Graduate School had become the dominate
model for the organisation of graduate education across the sector. Two thirds of the
universities who responded to the UKCGE survey now had graduate schools while six
other universities were considering establishing one.
Beneath the headline figures given above there is a range of models of what
constitutes a graduate school and what role it performs. The model adopted depends,
in part at least, on the size of the university and the number of doctoral students it has.
In cases where there are a large number of doctoral students Graduate Schools tend to
be at faculty or departmental level. In universities with relatively few doctoral
students the graduate school will tend to be at university level. Also, the resources,
facilities and responsibilities of graduate schools vary widely between the different
models adopted. Many have dedicated accommodation for their staff with associated
teaching and learning space for other staff and students. Many are responsible for
research training programmes and in some cases for the training of supervisors.
Particularly in the university-wide graduate school, quality assurance and student
monitoring, the management and support for higher degree committees and
institutional returns to the various agencies are often vested in the graduate school.
While this focus on the management and organisation of doctoral programmes in
graduate schools is a very welcome addition to the internal structure of universities
and may bring associated improvements in the quality of delivery of doctoral
programmes, it is not without its tensions. Perhaps most important of these is the
severing of any existing links between research students and the broader student
population and the potential disenfranchising of departments and faculties from the
research degree process in general.
So far there has been little discussion of development of discipline based graduate
schools at either institutional or regional level as has been the case in countries such
as Finland. It does seem likely however that pressure to concentrate the delivery of
doctoral programmes in groupings with adequate critical mass, such developments
will take place in the future.
9.2
Supervision in a changing context
Supervision and supervisory practice have received increasing attention in the
literature and from regulatory and sponsor organisations. The report from the
Wellcome Trust (Wellcome Trust, 2001) is one of the few analyses of the views
of supervisors themselves.
Bound up in the discussion of the nature and purpose of the PhD is the nature of
supervision. Is it a matter of researching - linked to the notion of the PhD being a
piece of original research or is it a matter of teaching - reflecting the view of the
PhD as being the training of advanced researchers. Such a dichotomy is clearly
too simplistic, it does however challenge us to clarify the role and nature of
doctoral supervision. In the QAA Code there is recognition in Precept 5, that part
of the research degree process is one of learning as well as of undertaking
research.
Precept 5: Institutions will only accept research students into an environment that
provides support for doing and learning about research and where high quality
research is occurring. (QAA, 2004, pp. 8)
The code then goes on to describe the characteristics of such a research environment
concluding that:
Such a learning environment will also enable research students to make judgements
requiring creativity and critical independent thought, accepting that uncertainty is a
feature of the conduct of research programmes. This environment should enable
students to grapple with challenges that develop intellectual maturity and encourage
a high level of reflection on the student's own learning about research as well as on
research outcomes. [QAA, 2004, pp.8].
‘In appointing supervisors, institutions need to be aware of and guided by the
overall workload of the individual, including teaching, research, administration
and other responsibilities, for example, external examining duties and other
professional commitments, such as consultancy or clinical responsibilities’
(QAA, 2004, p17)
The need to train supervisors has been recognised by policymakers and funders in the
UK for over ten years. As early as Winfield (1987) it was noted that supervisors were
attending seminars and workshops for training purposes. This theme is developed in
the Social and Economic Research Council (SERC) discussion paper on research
supervision that notes, ‘in order to become effective and productive managers,
supervisors must acquire discipline related skills, core research skills and
management’ (SERC, 1992). More recently the pressures to rethink the role of the
supervisor, increased emphasis on the training of supervisors and the importance of
supervision comes from a range of sources that may conveniently be referred to as
those pushing institutional change and those pulling or encouraging institutions to
change their practices. The push factors come from a series of initiatives and reports
over the past ten years or so, each of which has, in one way or another, exerted
pressure on institutions to pay more attention to supervisor behaviours. The Harris
report (Harris, 1996), itself a landmark in postgraduate education in the UK, initially
identified the need for more careful supervision and indeed for the training of
supervisors. Box 3, in which Harris identified the key attributes necessary for the
successful delivery of research degree programmes identified supervisor training as a
vital element.
The Research Councils have begun to recognise the importance of the supervisory
process to successful completion of award (in this they are led, arguably, by ESRC).
This has become formalised within the 2001 training guidelines from the ESRC in
which it is stated:
The ESRC will expect to see a statement about the provision of professional
development opportunities for supervisors in applications for recognition. It follows
that the ESRC will expect outlets to have formal systems in place for monitoring the
performance of supervisors, for identifying the training and development needs of
supervisors and for ensuring that these are met. [ESRC Training Guidelines 3rd
Edition 2001, C3.2 Training and monitoring of supervisors and supervision
arrangements].
The Policy Paper, 'Improving Standards in Research Degree Programmes’ produced
by the UK Funding Councils (HEFCE, 2003, Table 1, section 4a) states that in
connection with threshold standards for research degree supervision, ‘All new
supervisors [are] to undertake mandatory institutionally specified training.’
The revised QAA Code of Practice is less specific than the HEFCE publication noted
above but is also potentially more demanding on supervisor training. Precept 11 states
that ‘Institutions will appoint supervisors who have the appropriate skills and subject
knowledge to support, encourage and monitor research students effectively’ (QAA,
2004). Whilst not using the word ‘training’ explicitly therefore, under the revised
Code all supervisors will be expected to engage in development of various kinds to
equip them to supervise. The explanation beneath this Precept goes on to refer to
development activities, ‘to assure … competence in the role’, ‘ to demonstrate …
continuing professional development, ‘…. in updating knowledge and skills’ and
‘…sharing good practice’(QAA, 2004). The Code then identifies the new supervisor
who will ‘participate in specified development activities arranged through their
institution, to assure their competence in the role’.
10
Examining
10.1
Lack of clear purpose
The approach to examination of the doctorate is a further element of the process that
has received attention recently, in part because of empirical research that has
confirmed the anecdotal evidence of examining as a less than structured affair
(Tinkler and Jackson, 2004; Underwood, 1999).
There is evidence in the literature about a lack of clarity with regard to the purpose of
the viva (a) from an institutional perspective (Powell and McCauley, 2002) and (b) in
terms of the perceptions of the various participants (Tinkler and Jackson, 2004). For
example, the viva may be interpreted as an examination in the broadest sense of the
term (and here questioning may extend beyond the work presented in the thesis itself
to encompass issues of the candidate’s knowledge of related subject matter) or as
merely a matter of verification of authenticity. Indeed, many oral examinations seem
(to examiners and students alike) to become effectively opportunities to fine-tune the
written work of the candidate in order that it reaches a notional standard that is
acceptable for scrutiny by peers in the relevant intellectual community. Tinkler and
Jackson (2004, pp.16) list nine main distinct ‘roles’ that were cited by respondents in
relation to the purpose of the viva; no one role was mentioned by more than 40% of
respondents.
10.2
Search for Criteria
The UK national qualifications framework (QAA, 2001) describes doctoral level
work as that which makes a significant contribution to knowledge and which is
original. Institutions interpret this description in the way in which they set out criteria
(a description of a level clearly differs from the assessment criteria that need to be
attained to meet that level). Some use ‘contribution to knowledge and to the
application of that knowledge’; some include the notion of ‘publishability’. This last
indicator is usually expressed in a somewhat imprecise way, however, in some
disciplines the pressure to publish is more explicit; for example, BPS/UCOSDA
(1995) suggest that a doctoral submission should be equivalent to at least two articles
in refereed journals.
In all of the above there is little evidence that attempts have been made in a systematic
way to describe the benchmarking of doctorateness, though Shaw and Green (2001)
use the QAA Framework (2001) to explore the possibilities of doing just that. In their
work they identify the elements of the doctoral outcomes from the QAA’s doctoral
learning outcomes and develop a series of performance standards against which these
can be assessed. In this way they demonstrate how each of these elements may form
the basis for criteria in the assessment process. Whilst not concluding with a definitive
framework of criteria, they do demonstrate some of the strengths and weaknesses of
such an approach
The viva has come under scrutiny in terms of the way it is conducted with
considerable anecdotal evidence about the inadequacies of the process and the power
of the external examiner. The QAA Code pays specific attention to the way in which
examiners are appointed and the viva is conducted suggesting that the practice of
appointing an independent chair for each viva is an approach worthy of consideration.
Whilst this is used increasingly, it poses problems for institutions that have large
volumes of doctorates in terms of both cost and availability of suitable staff.
11
Funding
11.1
To Institutions
The current arrangements (December 2004) for the funding of universities for
research students are complex and as with all funding regimes open to manipulation.
It is bound up in the structure of the dual support system of research funding which
itself has been the subject of review in the recent past. Following the Gareth Roberts’
review of the RAE (Roberts, 2003) some changes will be made in the next RAE in
2008, but in principle the current arrangements hold true. Put simply, the dual
support system provides universities that reach a particular level according to the
RAE a funding stream often referred to as QR reflecting the quality of the research.
The precise level of funding is determined by:



the quality rating. This rating is on a scale of 1-5 plus 5*. In principle on only
departments with a rating of 4 or above receive QR funding;
the number of staff rated in each department, the volume measure. The more staff
the greater the funding. Research students contribute to this volume;
the academic subject under consideration. (see below).
The basic philosophy of this side of the model is to provide universities with a level of
funds to maintain staff and infrastructure at an adequate level to undertake research.
The other funding stream of the dual funding model comes from those agencies that
fund specific projects. These agencies include the Research Councils, the Research
Charities, Government Departments and Commercial Organisations and Companies.
And although Universities are moving to a full cost recovery approach to research
funding, the principle of the dual support approach will for the present be retained for
research.
The costs to universities for the delivery of doctoral programmes are funded through a
dual support structure similar to that for research projects and scholarship. In the case
of doctoral programmes, the Funding Councils provide one element and students,
frequently through a sponsor, provide the other through their payment of fees.
Following the Roberts Review an additional element of £850 on average for the
period 2004/5 has been added to support the delivery of research training for Research
Council funded students only (Loeffler, 2004). A similar approach has been adopted
for 2004/05 by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), which currently
contributes £450 per year for its research students. The AHRC will join the ‘Roberts’
allocation from 2005/06 following its changed status to Research Council.
In addition to funds from the Funding Councils, universities also charge fees for the
period of research. Fees vary between universities and across academic subject
categories. In some cases fees reflect market conditions and can be substantially
above levels advised by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES). A
considerable level of university discretion appears to apply in the setting of fees with
an increasing blurring of the line between full cost (usually overseas) and home/EU
students. Similar variation applies to the charging of bench fees.
11.2
Tuition fees
The fourth element of the funding stream for research students comes from tuition
fees and associated bench fees (such latter fees present, in some cases, a substantial
additional cost to research in science and engineering to cover items such as materials
and chemicals). The broad structure of full-time fees is set by the DfES and as usual is
subdivided into three broad categories: Home and EU, Overseas and Channel Islands.
With some variability between disciplines there is broad parity of fees charged within
the broad framework provided by DfES and little evidence that universities are
exploiting the market by either significant variability between subjects within cost
centres or between universities with different market positions for research. As we
will note below, some universities even waive the fees for some students and hence,
theoretically at least, we have a doctoral research degree process in some universities
for which the university receives a negative fee!
The Table 10 highlights several key facts about doctoral funding in the UK that reveal
a lot about the way in which training is approached. The role of the Research Council
funding has been declining over the period from 46.5% to 33.3% of doctoral student
fees. On the other hand the self-financing of fees, whilst only 15.4% in 2001/2 has
increased by 85.8% during the period. Private industry, an insignificant funder at
4.6% of the total, has become increasingly insignificant with a reduction of 19.6%
during the period
Table 10: Major Source of Tuition fees: UK Domiciled Full time First Year Doctoral
students in Science, Engineering and Technology
Source
1995/6
Universities
813
Local Government
118
Govt. Dept.
397
Research Councils
2343
Other UK Public
18
Self Financing
444
Charities
149
Private Industry
311
EC
9
Other overseas
37
Others/Unknown
390
Total
5029
Source: OST SET Statistics Table 5.7
1997/8
896
73
342
2136
17
426
122
342
5
28
306
4693
1999/0
800
50
340
2340
540
160
290
140
630
5280
2001/2
950
215
325
1780
5
825
165
250
5
115
700
5340
Table 11 highlights the importance of self-financing for part-time doctoral students
who make approximately 46% of students over the period. While not making such a
significant contribution to the total number, both University and Government
department funding have increased significantly, 37% and 66% respectively over the
period. Notwithstanding the positive statements about the access agenda and the need
to encourage more part-time research students, the Research Councils make only a
minimal contribution.
Table 11 Major Source of Tuition fees: UK Domiciled Part time First Year Doctoral
Students in Science, Engineering and Technology
Source
1995/6
Universities
186
Local Government
10
Govt. Dept.
99
Research Councils
13
Other UK Public
2
Self Financing
782
Charities
14
Private Industry
285
EC
1
Other overseas
0
Others/Unknown
283
Total
1675
Source: OST SET Statistics Table 5.7
1997/8
219
1
58
13
1
730
6
333
0
1
159
1521
1999/0
310
20
150
20
0
820
10
260
0
20
260
1850
2001/2
255
20
165
5
0
915
10
300
0
20
305
1995
In December 2004 the English Funding Council announced that it was to change the
payment to institutions and that a single payment – a supervision fee would be paid to
institutions for research students in departments rated 4 or above in the RAE 2001
(plus a small number of other departments receiving capability funding) (See HEFCE
2004). One implication of this new approach is to withdraw progressively funding
from over 5000 departments across the sector
11.3
Funding to Students: The stipend
Stipend is the term used here for the maintenance grant paid to doctoral students for
the period of their research. The word is used interchangeable with bursary and
scholarship. It is expected that the stipend will cover all the domestic costs including
accommodation, subsistence and transport.
The level of the stipend has come under scrutiny in recent years, linked to difficulties
in attracting good quality candidates to research programmes and the possible
difficulties in completion as students are obliged to take part-time employment to
compliment the stipend. The Research Councils for example note an increase in
unfilled studentships, both Masters and Doctoral, from 300 in 1996/7 to 618 in
1998/99, an increase from approximately 4.5% to 11% of the studentships available.
EPSRC had particular problems in the period with 25% of Masters and nearly 30% of
MRes places unfilled in 1998/99 (Research Fortnight, 1999a; Research Fortnight,
1999b and Hinde, 1999).
The attractiveness of the stipend has been the subject of several reviews. This has
been particularly in the case of science and engineering and in some of the social
science areas, notably economics (Hodges, 1999). Roberts (2002) demonstrated that
the level of the stipend fell by 4.5% in real terms between 1971/72 and 1991/92; while
during the same period starting salaries for graduates with an upper second first
degree rose by more than 42%. Despite the recent increases, from £6,800 in 2001 to
£9,000 in 2003/4, stipends represent little advantage over the UK national minimum
wage.
The Roberts recommendation that the stipend should be increased to £13,000 based
on comparisons with mean net graduate salaries is a welcome recognition of the
lamentable approach to PhD stipends and one which the 2003/4 and 2005/6 spending
reviews agreed to fund. The analysis does not however include an international
comparison, a major omission in the increasingly global market for high quality
graduate students. Such an analysis reveals that the UK continues to lag behind many
of our competitors (including English language speaking competitors). Whatever the
relativities it will be important to ensure that the stipend is both nationally and
internationally competitive if the UK is serious in its demands to recruit the most able
students onto its PhD programmes.
The Roberts conclusions however are based on average conditions and do not
consider variability across discipline, even within science. It also neglects some of the
more subtle aspects of funding such as national insurance contributions and maternity
and paternity entitlement during and after the research period. While there is some
evidence that starting salaries are higher both within and outside the academy for
those with a doctorate, the evidence is not overwhelming enough to compensate for
low stipends (see for example the British Academy discussion, British Academy
2001, p35 and Conlon and Chevalier, 2002).
12
Student issues
The representative student organisation in the UK is the National Postgraduate
Committee (NPC) it received charitable status in 2002 has been in existence for over
10 years. It is made up of postgraduate student representatives from educational
institutions with postgraduate students. The NPC aims to promote the interests of
postgraduates studying in the UK, while remaining politically non-aligned. The
Committee holds an annual conference, and publishes various guidelines and codes of
practice as well as the Journal of Graduate Studies.
The NPC has been influential in the past developing a range of resources for both
students and institutions. More recently it has been involved in the development of the
QAA Code of Practice. It does not however have the significance that the National
Union of Students (NUS) has more generally or the lobbying influence of student
bodies in other countries. It does however provide a basis on which to systematically
identify an agenda of issues of concern to students. What follows is anecdotal rather
than the result of survey or review.
The status of research students continues to attract attention. Currently, a research
student may have the status of a student or a member of staff. In the former case, they
will be funded on a grant or bursary and be subject to institutional regulation for
students. On the other hand, as a member of staff, research assistant, GTA or lecturer,
the terms of engagement and the associated regulations will be completely different.
So, in a science research laboratory of 8 doctoral candidates, each may have different
conditions; the student on a stipend from a Research Council and well funded, the
student who is self funding, the student who is institutionally poorly funded, a parttime student with no funding, a research assistant, on a short term contract, a research
fellow on a permanent contract and a member of the lecturing staff undertaking a PhD
part-time, and an overseas student funded generously by their sponsor government.
The quality of supervision is a matter of concern to students: NPC frequently has
questioned the quality and commitment of supervisors and supervisory practice A
glance at the NPC web site will highlight this by the several stories from disillusioned
students. Whilst each individual case of poor supervision is a tragedy for the student,
there does not appear to be other than anecdotal evidence of endemic supervisory
problems. Indeed the Wellcome survey for example indicates that the vast majority of
students are content with their lot. Nevertheless the improvement of supervisory
practice is highlighted in the Code as we have seen.
13
Conclusion
At the opening of the paper it was observed that whilst the ‘cottage industry’ is no
more there remain major challenges for doctoral education in the UK. The final
section lists some pertinent current issues .
13.1
The European Higher Education Area
The European challenge is probably just beginning as the third cycle enters the arena.
As noted earlier the UK has taken a less than enthusiastic attitude towards the
Bologna model. The recent referenda about the constitution may well encourage other
nations within Europe to change and adopt a similar approach. It is clear that with a
system that is internally so diverse, it will be a major challenge to take the ‘bananas
and custard’ approach, one of defined uniformity, to the doctorate.
13.2
The International Competitive Advantage of the UK Doctorate
Currently the UK Doctorate has a competitive advantage in the European and World
market. First because, particularly in the sciences, English is the dominant
international academic language, second because of the rigorous quality assurance
processes that are in place and third because of the timely completion rates as far as
Research Council students are concerned at least. However, these competitive
advantages may diminish certainly in Europe as EU model introduces common
standards for quality, delivery and completions in the move towards 2010, and
increasingly individual universities across Europe teach and research in English. The
recent HEFCE analysis of completion rates will not be helpful in this context.
13.3
Producing doctoral candidates – supply or demand led?
The purpose of the Doctorate is key to its future. The future number of doctorates in
the UK is largely unplanned and left instead to the vagaries of market forces. The
question of the supply of doctoral candidates has recently come to the fore with the
closure of some science departments and hence the potential long-term reduction in
research capacity in some subjects. While not wanting to enter detailed discussion of
funding, recruitment and national needs it is useful to note how some international
competitors are realising their needs.
Currently there is little relationship between the supply of PhD places at universities
and the demand for the services of doctoral candidates once their studies have been
successfully completed. If unemployment rates of PhDs in the UK are an indicator
then demand does appear to be particularly buoyant. However, at some point there
will be a need to examine in systematic manner how many doctorates are needed
rather than simply leave it to the individual decisions of individual universities.
13.4
Diversity in Doctoral Awards and the Need for Coherence
The diversity of awards with the general title of doctorate creates a serious level of
confusion in the market for suppliers, consumers and their sponsors.
The confusion noted above raises the question as to whether or not there has been a
fundamental shift of differentiation in the Doctorate in which divergent processes and
outcomes have been developed to address changing needs. It is suggested that the
answer to this question must be no. What has been evident is a tinkering at the
margins to satisfy particular needs without a fundamental review of purpose.
The writer has argued elsewhere that there is a serous need for the development of a
model that allows a level of coherence without uniformity. In a system however in
which the autonomy of institutions is paramount, it will be interesting to see where
this discussion is finally resolved. (Green and Powell, 2005)
13.5
The Innovative Possibilities of Electronic Submission
The development of electronic submission and storage has major potential for the
development of the Doctorate and the bringing together of the various doctoral forms
as it allows us to focus on a single form of submission for the diversity of disciplines
and their traditions. The UK is lagging behind the US and Australia and New Zealand
in this regard. Whist there are currently pilot schemes being developed, there is no
single model being developed and the British Library, the former repository of all UK
theses is moving slowly on the implementation of change.
The interactive potential of electronic submission will for example permit both
musician and chemist to demonstrate their competences in performance and
experiment respectively and will potentially offer an entirely new approach to the
presentation and testing of evidence. Electronic submission will also, of course,
enable wider and quicker access to research findings that form part of doctoral
submissions. This increased accessibility will bring benefits both in terms of
spreading the knowledge base and in increasing the transparency of standards of
doctoral work across international borders.
13.6
Personal Development Plan (PDP)
The Personal Development Plan (PDP) required of UK universities for all award
bearing provision, including doctorates, follows the Dearing Report recommendation
(Dearing, 1997) that HEIs should develop:


a transcript recording student achievement which should follow a common format
devised by universities collectively through their representative bodies;
a means by which students can monitor, build and reflect upon their personal
development.
The QAA has subsequently developed policy and practice which requires universities
to put in place Personal Development Plan (PDP) initiatives to ensure that students:





become more effective independent and self confident self directed learners;
understand how they are learning and relate their learning to a wider context;
improve their general skills for study and career management;
articulate their personal goals and evaluate progress towards achievement;
Encourage a positive attitude to learning throughout life.
Perhaps PDP will begin to address the many concerns over employability and
capacity development in research students. What it has done is to lump doctorates
within the overall portfolio of HE provision, along with both undergraduate and
postgraduate taught programmes and in so doing possibly ground it in the world of
learning.
13.7
Funding
The current structure of funding for both universities and students is complex at best
and confusing at worst; the complexity and confusion lead to degrees of games
playing. The HEFCE costing review and the move towards the recovery of full
economic costs will have significant impacts on universities and the availability of
doctoral programmes. One outcome will surely be a more critical review of the
Doctorate and its place in the higher education system. The system proposed for
future funding of doctoral work (HEFCE, 2004) reinforces the current concentration
of doctoral programmes in the more research intensive universities.
13.8
Two-Tier System
There is within the UK the possibility of a two-tier system of delivery developing
with regard to doctoral education. This matters if it means that the experience of
doctoral study for those in the lower tier is less than for those in the higher and if the
final doctoral outcomes (both ‘contribution to knowledge’ and candidate) are in any
way diminished. This question is particularly relevant to the way in which both
students and institutions fund the Doctorate and the resources and opportunities that
are made available. Institutions are increasingly aware of the costs of delivery, as are
students of the costs to maintain themselves, part and full-time. Can one be confident
however that these matters are fully examined when doctoral students are offered
places and consequently many will be under-funded.
13.9 Underlying purpose of the doctorate as an academic award
Many of the issues discussed above are concerned with aspects of the doctorate, its
organisation, funding and delivery - all very important matters to be considered. What
continues to be absent from the discussion is the doctorate itself and its purpose. Why
do institutions offer it as an award? Why do students want to follow doctoral
programmes? Why do employers wish to employ candidates with doctorates? Why
does Government wish to fund the delivery of doctoral programmes? These remain as
matters for discussion. Perhaps worryingly – place a group which represents each of
those perspectives together and ask the question and there will be as many answers as
people in the group. The key question must be ‘does this matter?’ The answer must
be: it does.
13
List of Abbreviations
The following list is provided for information and includes the majority of
abbreviations found in the literature on British Doctoral education.
ACS
Academic Cost Centre
AHRB
Arts and Humanities Research Board
AMusD
Doctor of Musical Arts
BBSRC
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
BPS/UCOSDA British Psychological Society and Universities and Colleges’
Staff Development Unit
BRRG
Better Regulation Review Group
CBI
Confederation of British Industry
CEQ
Course Experience Questionnaire
CNAA
Council for National Academic Awards
CQFW
Credit and Qualifications Framework, Wales
CRAC
Careers Research and Advisory Centre
CVCP
Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals now Universities
UK (UUK)
CDP
Committee of Directors of Polytechnics
DArt
Doctor of Art
DBA
Doctorate in Business Administration
DBA
Diploma in Business Administration
DClinPsy
Doctor of Clinical Psychology
DD
Doctor of Divinity
DES
Department for Education and Science
DfES
Department for Education and Skills
DLitt
Doctor of Letters
DMus
Doctor of Music
DNurse
Doctor of Nursing
DPhil
Doctor of Philosophy
DProf
Professional Doctorate
DSc
Doctor of Science
DSocSc
Doctor of Social Sciences
DTA
Doctoral Training Accounts
DTI
Department of Trade and Industry
EdD
Doctor of Education
EngD
Doctor of Engineering
EPSRC
Engineering & Physical Sciences Research Council
ESRC
Economic and Social Research Council
EU
European Union
FHEQ
Framework of Higher Education Qualifications
FT
Full-time
GTA
Graduate Teaching Associate
HEFCE
Higher Education Funding Council for England
HEFCW
Higher Education Funding Council for Wales
HEI
Higher Education Institution
HEIF
Higher Education Innovation Fund
HEQC
Higher Education Qualifications Council
HESA
Higher Education Statistics Agency
HMSO
Her Majesty’s Stationary Office
ILT
Institute of Learning Teaching
IP
Intellectual Property
IPR
Intellectual Property Rights
JISC
Joint Information Systems Committee
LEA
Local Education Authority
LLD
Doctor of Law
MA
Master of Arts
MD
Doctor of Medicine
MPhil
Master of Philosophy
MRC
Medical Research Council
MRes
Masters by Research
MSc
Master of Science
NERC
Natural Environment Research Council
NICATS
The Northern Ireland Credit Accumulation and Transfer
NPC
National Postgraduate Committee
NUCCAT
Northern Universities Consortium for Credit Accumulation and
Transfer
OECD
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OST
Office of Science and Technology
PgCert
Postgraduate Certificate
PgDip
Postgraduate Diploma
PGR
Postgraduate Research
PGT
Postgraduate Taught
PhD
Doctor of Philosophy
PI
Performance Indicator
PPARC
Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council
PREQ
Postgraduate Research Experience Questionnaire
PT
Part-time
QAA
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education
QR
Quality Research
RAE
Research Assessment Exercise
RDA
Regional Development Agency
SEEC
Southern England Consortium for Credit Accumulation and
Transfer
SERC
Science and Engineering Research Council (now EPSRC)
SHEFC
Scottish Higher Education Funding Council
TAPPS
Training and Accreditation Programme for Postgraduate
Supervisors
THES
The Times Higher Education Supplement
UKCGE
UK Council for Graduate Education
UoA
Units of Assessment
14
References
British Academy (2001) Review of Graduate Studies in the Humanities and Social
Sciences. Main report. British Academy, London
British Council (2004) Vision 2020: Forecasting International Student Mobility.
British Council
BPS/UCOSDA (British Psychological Society and Universities and Colleges’ Staff
Development Unit) (1995) Guidelines for Assessment of the PhD in Psychology and
Related Disciplines. OCOSDA, Sheffield
Conlon, G. & Chevalier, A. (2002) Rates of return to qualifications: a summary of
recent evidence. The Council for Industry and Higher Education (CIHE), London
Dearing, R. (1997) Higher Education in the Learning Society. National Committee of
Inquiry into Higher Education, London
Department for Education and Skills (DFES) (2003) The future of higher education.
White Paper, Department for Education and Skills, London. Cm 5735, HMSO,
London
DTI (1993) Realising our Potential: A Strategy for Science, Engineering and
Technology. Cmnd. 2250. White Paper, HMSO, London.
Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) (2001) Postgraduate Training
Guidelines, 3rd ed. Available from the Internet: www.esrc.ac.uk Accessed ??
Green, D. H. & Powell, S. D. (2004) The high price of good quality. The Independent
Education, 13th October 2004
Green, D. H. & Powell, S. D. (2005) Doctoral Study in contemporary Higher
Education, Open University Press/SRHE, London.
Harris, M. (1996) Review of Postgraduate Education. Higher Education Funding
Council for England, Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals Standing
Conference of Principals HEFCE, ref: M14/
Higher Education Funding Council for England HEFCE (2001) Review of research:
report on consultation. HEFCE, 01/17 available on the web
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2001/01_17.htm. Accessed 12/09/04
Higher Education Funding Council of England (HEFCE) (2003a) Improving
Standards in Postgraduate Research Degree Programme Informal Consultation.
HEFCE, 2003/01. London
Higher Education Funding Council of England (HEFCE) (2004) Funding for research
degree programmes (RDPs) Available from the web:
www.hefce.ac.uk/research/postgrad/rdpfund.htm. Access 20/01/05
Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) (2005) PhD research
degrees: entry and completion. HEFCE2005/2. Available from the web:
http://www.hefce.ac.uk. Accessed 12/01/05
Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) (2001) Students in Higher Education
Institutions, 1999/2000. HESA, Cheltenham
Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) (2004a) Students in Higher Education
Intuitions, 2002/3 Table 9C, HESA, Cheltenham
Hinde, J. (1999) Science fails to fill PhDs. Times Higher Educational Supplement
(THES) Feb 26th
Hodges, L. (1999) Economists fall for the lure of lucre. The Independent Higher
Education, 10th June 1999
J M Consulting Ltd (2005) Costs of training and supervising postgraduate research
students. A report to HEFCE by JM Consulting Ltd. February 2005. Available from
the web: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rdreports/2005/. Accessed 04/02/05
Loeffler, T. (2004) Skills Training Funding for Research Council funded PhD
students and postdoctoral researchers. Research Councils UK Training Group,
March
Metcalfe, J., Thompson, Q and Green, D.H. (2002) Improving Standards in research
degree programmes. A report to the Funding Councils of England, Scotland and
Wales. Available from the web: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rdreports/2002/
Millichope, R. (2001) Doctorates Awarded from United Kingdom Higher Education
Institutions. Statistics Focus, Vol. 3, Issue 2.
Office of Science and Technology (OST) (1994) Consultative Document: A New
Structure for Postgraduate Research Trainings, Supported by Research Councils.
Cabinet Office, London
Powell, S. D. & McCauley, C. (2002) Research Degree Examining – common
principles and divergent practices. Quality Assurance in Education, (Special Edition
‘Standards and the Doctoral Award’, 10(2):104-116
Quality Assurance Agency QAA (2001) National Qualifications Framework.
Available from the web: http//www.qaa.ac.uk/crntwork/nqf/ewni2001/contents.htm
(accessed 27th August 2004).
Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) (2004) Code of Practice for the Assurance of
Academic Quality and Standards in Higher Education: Section 1: Postgraduate
Research Programmes (2nd Edition). Gloucester: Quality Assurance Agency.
Research Fortnight (1999a) Alarm bells ring over vacant studentships. Research
Fortnight, Vol. 5 No. 9, February 1999
Research Fortnight (1999b) Universities choose conditions for PhDs. Research
Fortnight, vol. 6 No. 2, October 1999
Roberts, G. (2002) Set for Success, The supply of people with science, technology,
engineering and mathematical skills. HM Treasury. Available from the web:
www.hm-treasury.gov.uk Accessed 20/10/04
Roberts, G. (2003) Review of the Research Assessment Exercise. Report for the
Funding Bodies, HEFCE Issues for consultation May 2003. Available from the web:
http://www.ra-review.ac.uk/reports/roberts/roberts_summary.doc. Accessed 20/01/05
Sastry, T. (2004) Postgraduate Education in the United Kingdom. Higher Education
Policy Institute, Oxford
Sastry, T. (2005) Postgraduate research degree programmes in English universities –
costs and revenue. Higher Education Policy Institute, Oxford
Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC) (1992) Research student and
supervisor: an approach to good supervisory practice. (2nd ed). SERC, Swindon
Shaw, M. & Green, H. (2001) Benchmarking the PhD – a tentative beginning. Quality
Assurance in Education, 10(2):116-24.
Spagnold, F. (1994) Students abroad sponsored by the Government. Infoscapes, Vol.
2 No. 1 pp. 10-17
Tinkler, P. & Jackson, C. (2004) The Doctoral Examination Process: A Handbook for
Students, Examiners and Supervisors. Open University Press, Buckingham:.
UK Council for Graduate Education (UKCGE) (1995) Graduate Schools Survey.
UKCGE, Warwick Available from the web:
http://www.ukcge.ac.uk/report_downloads.html. Accessed 20/01/05
UK Council for Graduate Education (1996) Quality and Standards of Postgraduate
Research Degrees. UKCGE, Warwick. ISBN 0 9525751 9 1. Available from the
web: http://www.ukcge.ac.uk/report_downloads.html. Accessed 20/01/05
Underwood, S. (1999) What is a PhD? Towards a Discussion Paper Lancaster:
Higher Education Development Centre
Wellcome Trust (2001) Review of the Wellcome Trust PhD: The supervisor
perspective, Wellcome Trust, London
Winfield, G. (1987) The Social Science PhD. The ESRC Inquiry on Submission rates.
ESRC, London
Woodward, D. Denicolo, P. Hayward, S. Long, E. (2004) Review of Graduate
Schools Survey. UKCGE. Lichfield. Available from the web:
http://www.ukcge.ac.uk/filesup/Graduateschools.pdf. Accessed 20/01/05
Needs ref to the original imprioving standards consultancy